Amitav Bisoi @ Amiya @ Amitabh Bisoyi vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J.

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Sheragada PS Case No.318 of 2025 corresponding to ST Case No.492 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aska for commission of offences punishable under Sections 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 109(1)/ 118(2)/190 BNS r/w Sec.25(1-B)(a) /27 of Arms Act and Sec.3/4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, on the main allegation of hiring the contract killers to kill the husband of the informant by entering into a conspiracy with co-accused persons and facilitating the co-accused persons to attempt to the life of the husband of the informant by firing and hurling bombs at him, but the husband of the informant fortunately surviving in such incident.

In the course of hearing, Mr. Himansu Sekhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected with the crime, rather he has been falsely implicated in this case and the firearms seized in this case albeit having not been sent to forensic laboratory for ballistic report, but charge-sheet has already been filed under Arms Act which is nothing but an eye wash and the petitioner having detained in custody for more than a year without having any prima facie allegation against him, his further detention in custody is unwarranted. Mr. Mishra, further submits that no incriminating material has in fact been recovered from the petitioner nor was he found at the spot at the time of incident, but he has unnecessarily been harassed by the police in this case and his implication is without any material, which is evident from the fact that FIR does not disclose his name and thereby, the petitioner being an innocent person and detained in custody since last one year, he may kindly be granted bail. Mr. Mishra, further submits that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent and his implication in another case in Hinjili PS Case No.31 of 2012 having already been ended in acquittal, the petitioner cannot be shown to have any criminal antecedent and thereby, there is no impediment to grant bail to the petitioner. In support of his submission, Mr. Mishra produces the comprehensive affidavit filed by the uncle of the petitioner together with the copy of the judgment passed in ST case No.180 of 2014 arising out of Hinjili PS Case No.31 of 2012 and accordingly, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

On the other hand, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP by drawing attention of the Court to the role as alleged against the petitioner submits that not only the petitioner is the main accused for conspiring to kill the injured, but also there is enough materials to suggest that the petitioner has hired the contract killers to kill the injured and the firearms having recovered from the possession of the petitioner, it would not proper to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, Mr. Satapathy prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears not only allegation against the petitioner for entering into conspiracy with co-accused to hire contract killers by paying money to them, but also there is alleged recovery of firearms at the instance of the petitioner. Besides, the petitioner has allegedly given recovery of firearms and ammunitions pursuant to his disclosure statement and the seizure list indicates recovery of four numbers of country made pistol, one single-shot country made pistol, seven numbers of magazine, forty-three numbers of 7.65MM live ammunitions and five numbers of 8MM cartridges at the instance of the petitioner. Additionally, the injured has sustained not only firearm injuries with three bullets inside his body, but also burnt injuries on Axilla due to explosion and he has sustained some grievous injuries on his person. Besides, the statement of the witnesses to the disclosure statement of the petitioner also implicates him in this case. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-‡-vis the allegation sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials collected in support of the allegation against the petitioner and taking into account the injuries sustained by the injured and lastly, keeping in view the role as alleged against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this order may immediately be transmitted to the Court concerned.